The only argument I can see in favour of the F-110 as an alternative to some Hunters is cost. Could be cheaper to build & operate. Wouldn't be able to carry everything that's being loaded onto the Hunters, though. Maybe a GP frigate to supplement the grade A ASW Hunters.
Note that I'm not suggesting this. I'm just examining the arguments.
It seems everyone has their favourite platform that they think Australia should get, whether there is a role for it or not, even if it is at the expense of a platform specifically redesigned to meet Australian requirements.
The options are Hunter, or a capability gap while something else is sorted out.
Well in reality it would be an additional capability gap on top of those we already have.
There is the destroyer capability gap resulting from the Perth Class DDGs being retired without replacement.
There is the frigate capability gap from only three FFGs being acquired to replace six.
There is the ASW gap from acquiring a patrol frigate instead of an ASW frigate, then failing to procure a replacement before it's scheduled retirement.
There is the over arching major surface combatant gap from the required 16 to 23 major surface combatant numbers never being achieved, despite these numbers being established by geography and recognised by every serious review into naval strength for as long as there has been a Royal Australian Navy.
There is the minor warfare vessel gap from Australia failing to acquire any survivable minor warfare vessels with any level of combat power, since the end of WWII, despite this being seen as necessary and raising as a requirement every decade or so.
There is the submarine gap from failing to acquire a sufficient number of submarines to generate the required capability, then failing to replace those we did acquire before their scheduled end of life.
There is the littoral warfare gap where capability has declined instead of increasing during a period where the capability was needed for humanitarian and disaster relief if not warlike operations.
The RAN has been operating with equipment that is often over age, not for for purpose, and acquired in insufficient numbers for decades.
I thought the current ship building program was meant to address this, a couple of continuous builds, underpinning a sovereign industry capability and avoiding block obsolescence, but no, we can't even manage that. The life extensions and interim capabilities intended to facilitate the change to a continuous build are now becoming our long term solutions while various talking heads try and move everything off shore again.